Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

'Gaia' Scientist Admits Mispredicting Rate of Climate Change

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the captain-planet-will-still-kill-you dept.

Earth 744

DesScorp writes "James Lovelock, the scientist that came up with the 'Gaia Theory' and a prominent herald of climate change, once predicted utter disaster for the planet from climate change, writing 'before this century is over billions of us will die and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.' Now Lovelock is walking back his rhetoric, admitting that he and other prominent global warming advocates were being alarmists. In a new interview with MSNBC he says: '"The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that," he added.' Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace."

cancel ×

744 comments

Vindication (1, Insightful)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794109)

This guy is saying the sort of things that have been getting me downmodded here on slashdot for years.

Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening. But if it is it ain't happening at anything like the rate that would justify dismantling civilization over, we still aren't sure whether it is us or a natural cycle we don't undertstand, etc. And he doesn't go there but I will: too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization (Western industrial captialism based ccivilization that is...) bias glommed onto AGW with the willing consent of a lot of brand name scientists, thereby (rightly) harming the public's trust of all science.

Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (1, Insightful)

eldavojohn (898314) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794175)

This guy is saying the sort of things that have been getting me downmodded here on slashdot for years.

Really? There seems to be some discrepancy with your statement:

Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening.

There appears to be no room for that "may not" area in his statements (and largely public sentiment). And the end of the summary:

'Lovelock still believes the climate is changing, but at a much, much slower pace.'

I could see how your sentiment would be downmodded, I think the scientific community largely agrees Climate Change is happening, man-made or not.

Re:Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794279)

No, the original poster is right, regardless of what public sentiment says. What Lovelock says is that what he expected is that we'd be halfway to a cooked planet, and instead, climate is doing its thing, which is to behave unpredictably.

There's one kind of scientific corruption, which is obvious and easy to see - saying something you don't believe is true. This is easy to avoid. The more insidious form of corruption is to overstate one's degree of certainty in what you do believe to be true: "You don't understand - if I include all of my doubts, outliers and provisos, a non-scientific reader is not going to understand." That's the kind of corruption that, unfortunately, is at play here. Lovelock is calling this out.

Re:Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (2, Insightful)

jlehtira (655619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794315)

So we shouldn't have saved the ozone layer from CFCs, because nobody was certain about it? Because in science, nothing is ever really certain.

Re:Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (3, Insightful)

operagost (62405) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794415)

Actually, I was pretty sure because we had computer images that showed the hole, showed it was growing over time, and most importantly we could reproduce the effects of CFCs on ozone in a lab instead of just in a computer simulation. It also helps that we didn't have to dismantle civilization to get rid of CFCs.

Re:Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (5, Interesting)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794469)

You clearly didn't work in the cooling business. To them, they sky WAS falling, and it was falling on them. Until they found a replacement (which was more expensive and less efficient, but legal). Dismantling is a very harsh word.

Re:Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (4, Insightful)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794517)

Where does all this "dismantle civilization" stuff come from? Changing power sources is dismantling civilization?

Re:Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (5, Insightful)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794693)

Where does all this "dismantle civilization" stuff come from? Changing power sources is dismantling civilization?

That, Little Johnny, is what we call "over-the-top hyperbolic rhetoric spawning from extremist zealots."

Typically, when someone starts screaming that this or that will lead to the end of civilization as we know it, you're best off to just keep on truckin' by...

Re:Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (4, Informative)

BStroms (1875462) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794653)

As glad as I am we got rid of CFCs, it's actually a bit of a funny story where things went from there. The replacement chemicals for CFCs are greenhouses gasses over 4,000 times more potent than Carbon Dioxide. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/19/AR2009071901817.html [washingtonpost.com]

Re:Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (2)

nautsch (1186995) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794589)

There are (hopefully) experiments on the effects of CFCs on O3 molecules, that made us come to the conclusion that CFC damages the ozone layer. That was simple in my opinion. AGW/ACC on the other hand is far from being simple. I for one am very sceptical about the pace and the amount of global warming happening because of humans.

Re:Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (3, Informative)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794695)

There are (hopefully) experiments on the effects of CFCs on O3 molecules, that made us come to the conclusion that CFC damages the ozone layer. That was simple in my opinion. AGW/ACC on the other hand is far from being simple. I for one am very sceptical about the pace and the amount of global warming happening because of humans.

Uh, the science of AGW is so simple that it has been known since the 19th century. It's way simpler than the effect of CFC's on the ozone layer.

Re:Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (4, Informative)

Dishevel (1105119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794675)

No one is saying that.
What is being said is that climate is incredibly complicated.
What we know for sure is that we do not know. They were not a little bit off here. They were way off the mark.
Not because they are stupid. Not because they want to lie.
There was a TED talk on this. Where we think we can understand things that are really way too complicated for our brains to ever understand.
Luckily he does also point out that just because we can not truly understand something does not mean we can not solve it.

Everyone should watch this [ted.com] TED talk.

Re:Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (2)

Altus (1034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794689)

We didn't dismantle civilization to get rid of CFCs... we just got rid of the McDLT.

Re:Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794659)

Interestingly climate scientists never claimed we were going to fry by now. They were rather rationale about the climate change, they always looked at the data and revised their models accordingly.

Just because a crack pot suddenly cries uncle does not mean we cast aside the science.

Re:Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794327)

Thats the thing thats always bothered me about the folks who play chicken little to this. Hasn't climatology for a great while been used as the model of Chaos Theory? At least in discussion, if not in actual scientific research. If conversationally its compared to something so indicative of a lack of understanding of a process then how can we give weight to anyone who says that anthropogenic climate change is occurring. How do you/they/we know that it is in fact caused by mankind if we cannot even get a solid grasp and understanding of all the factors involved in its generation?

Re:Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (2, Insightful)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794713)

No. Weather is chaotic. Climate isn't.

Re:Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794443)

Climate Change is happening, man-made or not.

a) Despite what the "but it was warmer in the past!!" deniers seem to be implying, the surface temperature of the Earth doesn't change spontaneously.

b) The only thing around here which can heat the Earth is the Sun.

c) The amount of surface warming caused by the Sun is controlled by atmospheric composition.

d) There's not much doubt that we're changing that in a way which we know causes extra warming (ie. adding CO2, methane, etc.).

If there's any flaw in that logic I'd like to know it.

Bottom line: Unless something magical/unexpected happens, temperatures are going to go up.

Re:Er, Your Statement and His Don't Quite Mix (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794817)

If there's any flaw in that logic I'd like to know it.

Not much logic, just a few statements.

For point (a) I am not really sure to what you mean with deniers. It is a well researched subject and I have never heard anyone deny that earths average temperature used to be warmer.

(b) is true but omits that a lot of the surface temperature comes from hte hot center of Earth.

(c) is a bit clumsy written. The amount of surface warming caused by the Sun varies with the energy output form the Sun. The atmospheric composition filters the energy.

For (d) I don't have much to add. There are som theories that adding CO2 and methane to some atmospheres might help cooling those planets but that shouldn't be relevant to Earth.

Re:Vindication (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794209)

Turning off the lights in the room you're not in is dismantling western civilization ?

Re:Vindication (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794259)

No, but the anti-consumer, anti-consumption attitudes most greenies have, is.

Re:Vindication (4, Insightful)

mofolotopo (458966) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794325)

"Most" is an utter lie. Maybe most of the ones you see on Fox are like that, but in reality most people who are interested in and concerned about anthropogenic climate change realize that we need to balance economic necessity and long-term conservation priorities, and we aren't even remotely beginning to do that. It's very convenient to paint the people who disagree with you as enemies of civilization, unfortunately it is completely dishonest and counterproductive.

Re:Vindication (1)

jlehtira (655619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794345)

"Most greenies" might be advocating such things in order to pull in some direction. It's a widely accepted idea that if you want a 2% raise, you should ask for 4% and then negotiate. There was even a name for this, but I forget.

Re:Vindication (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794755)

It's the door-in-the-face technique.

Model fits the data [Re:Vindication] (5, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794241)

Yes, but Lovelock is a nut; he was on the alarmist edge. Always was. The "Gaia" model is a cool thing to talk to the public about, but it's not real science.

The mainstream climate scientists are not and have not been mispredicting the rate of climate change. If you look at the data from models from 1979 (the National Academy of Science study), or even the models from 1967 (the Manabe greenhouse-effect calculation)-- the actual data fits the model very nearly exactly.

The lesson to take home is that denying climate change is wrong, but exaggerating it is also wrong. Pay attention to the real scientists, and try not to give the fringe too much credance. Look at the data.

Re:Model fits the data [Re:Vindication] (4, Insightful)

mofolotopo (458966) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794287)

Exactly right. Lovelock has finally realized what most climate scientists and ecologists have know for decades: Lovelock is out of his frickin' mind.

Re:Model fits the data [Re:Vindication] (3, Insightful)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794479)

Yeah, I read this as "Discredited Scientist Makes New Prediction!"

Re:Model fits the data [Re:Vindication] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794411)

The problem is that the data tells us one thing and the IPCC tells us another. [wordpress.com]

Dare ask questions about this rather strange concept known as "scientific consensus" and you'll be labelled a "denier".

Re:Model fits the data [Re:Vindication] (0)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794687)

Exactly! Gravity is just a fad anyway.

Re:Model fits the data [Re:Vindication] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794433)

He is talking about the data. Temps have remained constant - didnt you read?

if you did not have your head stuck in the sand, you might realize that the theory is bogus.

Your high priest just told you its bogus!

Re:Model fits the data [Re:Vindication] (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794627)

Your high priest just told you its bogus!

Ouch! If people were really holding him up as a mainstream climate scientist, then perhaps the article's headline should be "Straw man retires"

Re:Model fits the data [Re:Vindication] (1)

oh_my_080980980 (773867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794707)

The data shows the planet temperature has increased. Do some research.

Re:Model fits the data [Re:Vindication] (4, Informative)

thelamecamel (561865) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794463)

The mainstream climate scientists are not and have not been mispredicting the rate of climate change. If you look at the data from models from 1979 (the National Academy of Science study), or even the models from 1967 (the Manabe greenhouse-effect calculation)-- the actual data fits the model very nearly exactly.

Here's a checkup [realclimate.org] on a Hansen prediction from 1981. I wouldn't call it near-exact, but still pretty good for a 30-year-old model of a very complicated set of things.

Speaking of graphs, I find this one [berkeleyearth.org] really scary, and would want to see it flatten out or drop for a good few years before I stop caring about my energy usage.

Re:Model fits the data [Re:Vindication] (4, Insightful)

Poorcku (831174) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794483)

No Model Fits This Data.

Sorry. Show me a model made between 1995 and 2010 that fits the observed data of the last decade. Not one single fits. They were enough for policy making though.

I hold nothing but skepticism for the people who say "scientific consensus!". Because for the Piltdown Man to turn from consensus to hoax it took 45 years. And many reputations of the people who said it was a hoax with it.

Of course now Lovelock is declared to be a nut, an extremist, on the alarmist edge. But before he was:

- elected a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1974. He served as the president of the Marine Biological Association (MBA) from 1986 to 1990, and has been an Honorary Visiting Fellow of Green Templeton College, Oxford (formerly Green College, Oxford) since 1994. He has been awarded a number of prestigious prizes including the Tswett Medal (1975), an ACS chromatography award (1980), the WMO Norbert Gerbier Prize (1988), the Dr A.H. Heineken Prize for the Environment (1990) and the RGS Discovery Lifetime award (2001). In 2006 he received the Wollaston Medal, the Geological Society's highest Award, whose previous recipients include Charles Darwin. He became a CBE in 1990, and a Companion of Honour in 2003.

Just like De-Stalinization, his own kind reject him now. So excuse me while I say, Lovelock, you son of a b****! Go to hell.

Re:Model fits the data [Re:Vindication] (5, Informative)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794731)

No Model Fits This Data.

Sorry. Show me a model made between 1995 and 2010 that fits the observed data of the last decade.

The calculation done in 1967 by Manabe and Wetherald-- it's summarized in any textbook about atmospheric science. This was the first numerical calculation of the global greenhouse effect; their calculated response value is still near the center of the consensus value used today. Send me your email address and I'll send you a jpeg comparing the model and the data.

Not one single fits.

Incorrect. In fact, all of them fit, but I like to sue the Manabe calculation because it has the longest run of comparison of theory to experiment. The National Academy of Sciences study of 1979.

....Of course now Lovelock is declared to be a nut, an extremist, on the alarmist edge. But before he was:

[long list of completely irrelevant stuff]

Not a single thing you list has anything whatsoever to do with climate science. Nothing.

List one single paper in which he contributes significant work to climate science. There aren't any. He's a colorful popularizer, but he's a biologist, not a climate scientist.

That's the whole problem-- people keep paying attention to popularizers and colorful characters and other people who have loud mouths. Ignore them. Pay attention to the actual science.

Re:Model fits the data [Re:Vindication] (0)

Poorcku (831174) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794789)

You are absolutely right. that is the whole problem. People like him help forming mainstream opinions that are flat out wrong, but nevertheless are decisive in policy making. End I end up paying with my hard earned euros some unfounded scientific fact.

Re:Model fits the data [Re:Vindication] (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794561)

Oh he's a respected mainstream climate scientist now that his nutjobbery has blown up in his face.

Re:Model fits the data [Re:Vindication] (5, Insightful)

Artraze (600366) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794677)

I couldn't agree more.

The problem is though, that people like Lovegood are very rarely called out on their crap. We have people (*cough* Al Gore *cough*) going around literally calling it a _crysis_. And what do we get from it? Politics. 'Action!'. But if anyone says that we ought to really just slow down (and even look at the data!), they get labeled a "denier" and all discourse is shut down.

> Look at the data.

Like... I dunno, maybe IPCC's claim that the Himalayan glaciers will be gone by 2035? But that turned out to be unreviewed speculation and the glaciers actually haven't lost any net ice over the decade... Oops!

Now, I don't mean to extrapolate that to saying all climate data as bunk, but I _do_ mean to use it as an example of how data can be flawed, interpretations can be flawed, and just plain human stupidity and bias can get in the way (which is the only way you can 'excuse' the above reporting of a media interview as a scientific finding). There is far more room for discussion than is presently allowed by the various groups looking to use climate change as a blank check for political gain, personal gain, or simply a cause to blindly fight for. I just wish people were even half as interested in calling out the alarmists as are the 'deniers'.

Re:Vindication (4, Insightful)

nomadic (141991) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794243)

"if it is it ain't happening at anything like the rate that would justify dismantling civilization"

And this is where anti-AGW is at its most dishonest.

Re:Vindication (1, Insightful)

jlehtira (655619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794285)

Sorry, you're wrong. He is saying different things.

We know some things for certain. Global average climate has changed by a measurable, albeit small, amount. We know that emitting CO2 changes the climate. It is happening alright, and unless there are huge volcanic eruptions or other catastrophic natural disasters, it will keep happening. The rate of its happening has been projected to be quite modest, by IPCC, in 2007. Even before, the best scientific scenarios have been realistic - and more and more realistic all the time. Certainly we don't know exactly what the climate is doing, but our idea is getting better and better.

It seems to me that James Lovelock has just taken 20 years to admit he was wrong in the eighties.

I agree with you that we shouldn't dismantle civilization. Let's instead make a small effort, and put 5% of GDP into minimizing our contribution to climate change. That'd be a small contribution, hardly noticable, but would already do something.

Re:Vindication (3, Informative)

treadmarks (2528414) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794437)

Sorry, this doesn't vindicate climate denial at all. He's just one scientist who made kooky predictions and if you think he's at all important then you need a remedial course in logic. As a matter of fact, climate change has been occurring shockingly fast, faster than even the worst case scenarios were predicting (source http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/02/06/us-climate-canada-idUSTRE6145KP20100206 [reuters.com] ). Due to a complete political failure to address the issue, an 11 degF rise in temperature is expected.

Re:Vindication (4, Insightful)

RogueWarrior65 (678876) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794475)

What pisses me off are the people who think that wealth redistribution in the form of carbon-credit trading will do anything to solve the problem, if there really is a problem. Witness the latest insult by the UN that basically taxes the hell out of leading nations to support "green project" in third-world countries. There are ALWAYS sticky fingers in schemes like this. It would be one thing to require a leader nation to actually procure the solar plant equipment and set it up somewhere but that's not what they want. They just want the money.

That aside, if global catastrophe is such a big deal e.g. An asteroid is headed directly for Earth, every person is going to be affected in the same way therefore every person is equally responsible for dealing with it. There will be no "all animals are equal but some are more equal than others" here. So, by that logic, nobody gets a pass on carbon emissions. Nobody gets to buy their way out of it and no industry or enemy of the regime gets punished. Note that the carbon trading in commodities markets has be severely scaled back if not eliminated. Take money out of the equation and oh look, gee whiz, the problem isn't such a big problem anymore.

Re:Vindication (0)

Eunuchswear (210685) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794799)

Witness the latest insult by the UN that basically taxes the hell out of leading nations to support "green project" in third-world countries.

Oh, do tell us more.

UN taxes? Please review your drug intake.

Re:Vindication (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794551)

But if it is it ain't happening at anything like the rate that would justify dismantling civilization over

The belief that proposals for limiting carbon emissions are "dismantling civilization" is the same sort of kookiness that leads others to believe that the UN is constructing landing strips for alien ships.

we still aren't sure whether it is us or a natural cycle we don't undertstand

We KNOW it's a natural cycle we don't understand, but it's dishonest to represent that to mean we know nothing about it. We know for a fact that carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases absorb infrared radiation. That means that as their concentrations increase, the Earth's atmosphere becomes more opaque to infrared. What does that mean? That means less radiative cooling for the closed system we call Earth. That is undisputed physics.

too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization (Western industrial captialism based ccivilization that is...) bias glommed onto AGW with the willing consent of a lot of brand name scientists, thereby (rightly) harming the public's trust of all science.

"Brand name scientists"? That sure sounds like thinly-veiled conservative-speak of "science elites" and other bullshit buzzwords designed to vilify knowledge and exalt ignorance. What does "with the consent [of scientists]" mean? Politicians ask permission from scientists before adopting a position? Wut?

Re:Vindication (1)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794559)

too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization (Western industrial captialism based ccivilization that is...) bias

So what you're saying is that too many westerners are biased against western civilization? Too many corporations are biased against western industrial capitalism? Or are you suddenly arguing that too many politicians exist in a vacuum, with no elections to fight and no campaign fundraisers to run? Cuz from what I see, politicians all over pretty much swing (mostly) with the fundraising and (sometimes) the voting wind.

Your paranoia would be cute if it wouldn't be so widespread.

People who aren't climate scientists (2)

Beryllium Sphere(tm) (193358) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794563)

"Who is this that darkens counsel by words without knowledge?"

The guy's not a climate scientist by profession or education. He's as useless as the Heartland Institute. Even now he's getting basic facts wrong.

>we still aren't sure whether it is us or a natural cycle we don't undertstand,

Isotope ratios and measurements show that we're producing the CO2, and the pattern of warming (colder stratosphere, warmer nights, less longwave radiation escaping to space) matches causation by CO2.

Re:Vindication (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794595)

First, this guy is saying global warming is occuring, just slower than he thought. his initial predictions were alarmist and fringe. mainstream science did not back him. Second, no one is asking to dismantle civilization. Talk about exaggeration. Three, yes, you're right, we don't know if it's a natural cycle or not. However, if it continues as it is, we will no longer be able to live on the planet. Whether you think we (humanity) are causing the global warming or not, I feel like that is something to be concerned over. That is something I've always noticed anti-AGW folks say. For some reason anti-AGW try to broaden there message to saying global warming isn't occuring. That's preposterous. I don't care if it's anthropogenic or not, it's getting warmer and its not good. We should try to push it the other direction, whether or not we caused the upward trend. Your point of view is extremely defeatist. "Yeah, it's getting warmer, but we didn't do it. Oh well, might as well wait to die instead of trying anything."

Re:Vindication (3, Interesting)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794613)

Lovelock's climate change, the stuff he predicted 30 years ago and which he's now saying was inaccurate, was the stuff of bad science fiction movies and bears very little resemblance to the actual predictions made by climate scientists. No serious climate scientist has ever predicted 90% of the worlds surface being uninhabitable. Compared to his predictions, the less than 1 degree C rise in temperatures we have seen is "nothing much", the problem is that 1 degree C is more than enough to screw up all kinds of stuff. It's just not enough to drive humanity to the brink of extinction like he predicted two decades ago.

Ridiculous. (2, Informative)

sidragon.net (1238654) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794645)

Global Warming/Climate Change may or may not be happening.

That statement is absurd. I cannot believe there are still people pandering this and similar opinions. Read Why the Global Warming Skeptics Are Wrong [nybooks.com] by William Nordhaus. Climate change is happening, and human activities are likely causing it.

[Not at] the rate that would justify dismantling civilization over...

Nobody is suggesting that. This is nonsensical hyperbole on its face. However, the scientific community is suggesting that we: use less energy, find renewable energy sources, and make less babies. The first two are profitable investments we ought to make regardless whether the climate is changing.

Re:Vindication (0)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794691)

Yes, yes, of course taxing CO2 emissions, deploying alternative energy production, increasing the price of gas in the US to European levels, building high-speed rail connections between major cities, and encouraging conservation efforts would completely destroy Western civilization!

Straw man (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794715)

The need to reduce our CO2 emissions is based on the *moderate* UN estimates not some fringe. So fringe Gaia man says "ooh I should have been more moderate in my estimates" and scientific community nods in agreement.

It won't stop Fox misrepresenting Gaia mans admission as 'Climate change is a fraud' but I think you should at least be able to see through the logic problem here.

As to whether it requires dismantling of our civilization, that puts YOU at the extreme fringe. What they're calling for is a reduction in CO2 output which needs steps like energy efficiency and alternate power sources. Not some sort of extreme caveman claim that you're making.

Re:Vindication (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794745)

Climate changes. It always has, and it always will. To deny that is tantamount to being a young earth creationist.
To then shift the argument to anthropogenesis is disingenuous in that it entirely avoids the core issue: The climate is changing.
Why it is changing is almost irrelevant. If the current progression of climate change is expected to have a negative impact on human civilization, it is logical to combat this change. It really doesn't matter if the climate is changing due to solar cycles, galactic spin, flying spaghetti monsters, or human industry. If sea levels rise 10 meters, people living in coastal cities won't find much solace in the fact that it wasn't their actions that are to blame.
Granted, there may be value in determining why the climate is changing; perhaps that way we could address the root causes. However, this is entirely unnecessary, since geoengineering (like, say, by cutting CO2 output) will allow us to affect the climate in desireable ways REGARDLESS of WHY the climate is changing.
After too many years of listening to this "debate", I still have yet to hear a coherent response to the question "Why does it matter if we are or are not sure whether it is us or a natural cycle we don't understand, etc.?", since this is now one of the more prevalent methods of dismissing the need to take action on this issue.

Re:Vindication (5, Informative)

ideonexus (1257332) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794757)

How did this make the front page of Slashdot??? James Lovelock is not a Climate Scientist, he's and an independent scientist and environmentalist who is famous for the Gaia Hypothesis [wikipedia.org] a half-scientific half-philosophical metaphor for understanding Earth's biosphere. There is no reason anyone should give this man any credibility when it comes to speaking on the subject of Climate Change projections.

Do you know who is qualified to speak on this subject? James Hanson, and a 1981 paper [thedgw.org] he published in a peer-reviewed journal attempted to project the rise in temperatures over the next 30 years. Those projections still managed to underestimate the observed rise in temperatures by 30 percent [realclimate.org] and even the worst case scenario of those projections managed to underestimate the observed trend.

So no. You are not vindicated. You have demonstrated that you have no understanding of how science works, elevating the opinion of someone speaking outside their realm of expertise over the peer-reviewed published research of an expert with over three decades working inside the subject of climate change.

Re:Vindication (0)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794811)

"But if it is it ain't happening at anything like the rate that would justify dismantling civilization over,"
something NO CLIMATOLOGIST WANTS TO DO. This guy is a chemist, not an expert in this field. Climatologist have derided this guys prediction for years.

"too many politicians with a preexisting anti-civilization"
nonsense.

" glommed onto AGW "
You really have no clue of the history of Climate Change. NO one glommed on to it. it took time and evidences.

".. glommed onto AGW "
the media did that be pretend individual studies as a complete picture and not reminding people that it's one study and more is needed.

But the sky is still falling, right?!? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794111)

But I've been screaming in the faces of anyone who will listen for years that global warming is going to kill us all IF WE DON'T TAKE RADICAL ACTION RIGHT NOW--RIGHT *NOW* DAMMIT!!!!!!!!!!

Please tell me that Lovelock has just been bought off by the oil companies to say this new stuff. Please tell me that we're all still doomed.

Re:But the sky is still falling, right?!? (0)

nomadic (141991) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794257)

"Waaah, anthropogenic global warming would be inconvenient for me financially, I think, so obviously it cannot really exist!"

Re:But the sky is still falling, right?!? (2, Insightful)

SirBitBucket (1292924) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794331)

Conversely: Anthropogenic global warming would very convenient for all the scientists researching it, as it brings in tons of research money, therefore it must exist, and be ridiculously powerful. (The thing is that GW as a whole is being exaggerated by both sides one way or the other, and I fear not enough unbiased info is being collected either way.)

Re:But the sky is still falling, right?!? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794637)

Conversely: Anthropogenic global warming would very convenient for all the scientists researching it, as it brings in tons of research money, therefore it must exist, and be ridiculously powerful.

People keep making this assertion over and over like it is proven fact, but nowhere have I ever seen any proof that there is substantial economic incentive for any given scientist to come out in support of global warming theory. In fact, the most likely Nash equilibrium if they were to game it would be to have half of them come down on either side of the issue so that they could use the debate to fuel research dollars. That is absolutely nothing like what is happening.

The thing is that GW as a whole is being exaggerated by both sides one way or the other, and I fear not enough unbiased info is being collected either way.

Okay, let's pretend that there is a bunch of bias like you are talking about. What portion of the 90+% of climatologists who purport to believe AGW is a real and dangerous thing do you think are being manipulated? Can you pick a high enough number to convince anybody that we shouldn't at least be highly concerned without also picking a number so high that it would be impossible without a massive global tinfoil-hat conspiracy?

Re:But the sky is still falling, right?!? (-1, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794763)

", as it brings in tons of research money, "
no it doesn't. Please STFU about shit you have no clue about.

You have the actual experts vs the oil companys PR arm. Which INCLUDES proved effort to discredit science in the class room.

You fuck heads talk about the mythical pile of money for scientists and ignore the 100 billion dollar industry it impacts.
Why the FUCK do you think the the government piddle sum to scientists causes the scientist to lie when there are many magnitudes more money in saying it doesn't exist?

DO you even know how to think? You poor excuse for limp wristed cum stains are helping the oil industry destroy the habitability of the planet by humans.

If money corrupts the science, then we would never heard of AGW.

Of course, the science backs AGW, so all you dick heads have is ad homs, lies and ignorance.

On the flip side (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794141)

My dick is rising at an ever faster rate thinking about some hairy man-hole. Watching my balls slapping his balls gives me a hard-on that just won't stop!

"I don't know" is a valid answer. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794199)

Instead of bowing to political pressure sometimes the most honest thing science can say is the answer isn't available. We thought we understood something, it turns out we don't. It's still worthy of further study and concern.

Re:"I don't know" is a valid answer. (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794295)

Who's "we"?

I'm pretty sure not many people thought the only tolerable living space on the planet would be at the poles. Most people were/are thinking of two or three degrees difference (which is still enough to melt an awful lot of ice).

What the guy is actually saying is he was an alarmist out to sell boks. Now he's changing the timescale of his prediction. Nowhere is he reversing himself or saying climate change isn't happening.

Arctic (1)

louic (1841824) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794203)

If he had believed his own "theory" he would have moved to the Arctic. He hasn't.

Re:Arctic (0, Flamebait)

vlm (69642) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794283)

If he had believed his own "theory" he would have moved to the Arctic. He hasn't.

Most of this stuff is aimed as an excuse for increasing govt control, the usual statist stuff, with the early alarmists in charge of course, since they're the most experienced WRT the subject etc etc. "I'll be king of the carbon credits market!!" or "I'll be the bureaucrat at the EPA in charge of the CO2 as a poison department!!" and so on.

Evacuation to the arctic is pointless is the goal was control and power here. Unless we annex the arctic as a "northern manifest destiny" or something like that. Which could happen...

Re:Arctic (1, Flamebait)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794671)

"Evacuation to the arctic is pointless is the goal was control and power here."
It's not about power. That is a lie designed to create fear. It was created by people who mkae a lot of money selling products that spew crap into the air.

Change I believe in (5, Funny)

AshFan (879808) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794217)

Don't just whine about it, do something! Personally, I plan on running my air conditioning all summer with my windows and doors open. If we all work together, we can turn this thing around. WHO'S WITH ME!?

Re:Change I believe in (2)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794649)

WHO'S WITH ME!?

A frighteningly large number of people, apparently.

Shock! outrage!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794223)

Sudden outbreak of honesty! What is the world coming to????

Yeah, well... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794239)

Considering first the email dump discussed data massaging, now this. The problem here is that people are missing the big picture -- as a species, we need to be as aware as possible of the terrestrial and extra-terrestrial environment, regardless of politics and opinion. Alarmism or denial is simply inserting your own opinion into what should actually be a process of scientific critique, whatever you think of it.

You're using Lovelock as the paradigm??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794267)

I'm sorry, but Lovelock's hypotheses about global warming have always been over the top. He was predicting that the Sahara desert would be in the middle of Europe by 2040. He is sooooo far off what the majority of climate scientists claim. So holding him up as the example of a typical climate scientist is disingenuous at best. The IPCC claims are very much more conservative than Lovelock's. I see Lovelock's retractions as his recognition that mainstream climate science is probably correct.

Re:You're using Lovelock as the paradigm??? (1, Flamebait)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794309)

He was predicting that the Sahara desert would be in the middle of Europe by 2040.

Take a tour round Paris sometime. Looks like the population's there already.

Re:You're using Lovelock as the paradigm??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794523)

This may be the most subtle nigger post ever made on /.

Re:You're using Lovelock as the paradigm??? (1)

dave420 (699308) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794793)

No, no it doesn't. Do you try to be such an ass on purpose, or is it just a natural gift?

Can I get my money back now? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794281)

These guys were pushing to get their budgets increased, scaring people into forking over money (mostly tax dollars) to fund their projects. I want my money back. Whenever a scientist is pushing an agenda like this, you know they are just attempting to push public money to their cause. Even better if they get a few policticians pushing their message as well. ...I want my money back...

Re:Can I get my money back now? (3, Informative)

Darth Snowshoe (1434515) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794643)

I may not be so well informed on this, but I don't believe Mr. Lovelock took any of your tax money for climate or weather science. For starters, he lives in Great Britain, and is a British citizen. According to the Google.

But if you're paying taxes in Great Britain, he still hasn't taken any of your money. Mostly he just writes books. There's no public subsidy for what he does, and very little science involved. He's essentially a crank.

Climatologists Agree (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794297)

This pretty much brings James Lovelock into agreement the mainstream science, where the consensus prediction is for anthropogenic warming of at most a few degrees Fahrenheit by the end of the century. And hey, that's exactly what you're supposed to do when confronted with actual data, isn't it?

I'm still waiting for the deniers to do the same.

Re:Climatologists Agree (5, Insightful)

ledow (319597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794363)

There's a difference between agreeing the data is correct, and agreeing WHY it's like that.

I would probably agree that their data is correct and temperatures are rising.

Somehow linking that to humans, that's the REALLY controversial part and it's MUCH harder to provide fact in that case. Almost impossible. At least without a several-million-year-long scientifically controlled investigation (and, no, fossil records, ice-cores, etc. do NOT give us the reason, they give us some facts).

WHY Earth is heating is still completely unknown - why it's EVER heated has always been unknown. We don't even know what prompted ice-ages in the past and they were seriously major events. Thus, forming government policy or charging me indirectly via my tax for related green initiatives because "humans are warming the planet" is ludicrous at best.

Facts are easy to confirm or deny - and anyone who goes against them is usually an idiot. It's the WHY of the facts and the things that you CAN'T collect facts for - that's where science is made.

Re:Climatologists Agree (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794513)

Somehow linking that to humans, that's the REALLY controversial part and it's MUCH harder to provide fact in that case. Almost impossible. At least without a several-million-year-long scientifically controlled investigation (and, no, fossil records, ice-cores, etc. do NOT give us the reason, they give us some facts).

This is a little like saying "evolution can't be proved without a several-million-year-long scientifically controlled investigation." We have very good evidence that humans are increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We also have very good evidence that increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere causes warming (and this evidence is NOT from ice cores; it's from physics).

WHY Earth is heating is still completely unknown - why it's EVER heated has always been unknown. We don't even know what prompted ice-ages in the past and they were seriously major events.

We don't know what caused ice ages, but we do know some things. For example, we know that if the sun increases its output, earth will get hotter. We know that if carbon dioxide is injected into the atmosphere, the earth will get hotter, at least for the short term (centuries to millennia). And we know that if albedo decreases, the earth will get hotter (again, for the short term of centuries to millennia).

We also know that humans are doing a couple of those things.

What more do you want?

Re:Climatologists Agree (1, Insightful)

mvdwege (243851) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794605)

Don't be silly. Earth is warmer than its orbital position would indicate, so something is trapping solar heat. It has been known since the turn of the 19th century that carbon dioxide will do just that, even in small concentrations.

So, we have an observed rising of CO2 in the atmosphere, an observed rising temperature, and a mechanism connecting the two: it's fair to say that CO2 is the main driver of the rise in temperature.

We know the isotope ratio of carbon in naturally occurring processes. We know the isotope ratio of carbon in fossil fuels. Measurements confirm that the rising CO2 is mostly the product of burnt fossil fuel hydrocarbons.

What other mechanism has been proposed to explain the above points? Elf farts?

Mart

Re:Climatologists Agree (1, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794657)

"Somehow linking that to humans, that's the REALLY controversial part and it's MUCH harder to provide fact in that case. Almost impossible."
No, it isn't. CO2 is causing it, we spew billions of tons of CO2 in the air.
No other mechanism for the increase in the temperature has every panned out.

A non-credible source admits he is non-credible (4, Insightful)

PvtVoid (1252388) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794349)

So where's the news here? This nut was never a credible climate scientist in the first place, and I don't think any of his previous views were shared by anybody who is a credible climate scientist.

Lovelock makes a living out of making sensational, half-baked pronouncements and selling them as science. Good for him for admitting he was wrong, but that doesn't discredit any of the actual science.

Re:A non-credible source admits he is non-credible (1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794625)

So, why didn't these "credible" scientists conspire together to discredit him years ago? After all, he's a nut according to your logic. There is nothing more damaging than a fool advocating your theories. Could it be an inconvenient truth that nobody wanted to discredit him because he was doing the right thing by getting people excited?

Re:A non-credible source admits he is non-credible (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794739)

Because PR is not a scientists job.

Re:A non-credible source admits he is non-credible (1)

BMOC (2478408) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794735)

Sounds like attempted whitewashing. For over a decade now, science journalism, science publishing, and indeed the IPCC which is supposed to be the climate-science gold-standard (or is it gold-pressed-latinum standard?), has been all too eager to engage these very same people, to use them as mouthpieces for their own dire predictions, and to incorporate them into a movement to radically reshape how energy is bought and sold and used in the world. The worlds economies run on those forms of energy, so what was planned was little less than a control of the world economy at large, a unified "Gas-pedal" as it were on world production that was controlled by a few that were accountable to no one.

Now, when those "non-credible scientists" as you say are backing down from their completely untenable belief systems, now you wash your hands of what they were saying before?

Make up your minds. Either what they were saying was correct and doom was upon us because we drove SUV's, or it was exaggerated alarmism. You can't have it both ways. Your quote of "doesn't discredit any of the actual science" is vacuous and true on face because science was not what these men were preaching. What they were spouting was political activism that had no basis in reality while abusing their standing as authorities on the matter. But you alarmists were all too eager to use them as authorities and subject-matter-experts to quote when they were saying what you liked. Now that they're not, they're kooks?

How is that cognitive dissonance treatment coming along anyway?

I vividly remember (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794377)

Yes, I vividly remember the alarming predictions of climate change years ago.

Except that the predictions were for a new ice age [skepticalscience.com] .

These so-called "climate scientists" have never been able to get their fucking story straight.

They have totally squandered their credibility with their junk science and alarmist attention-whoring. They deserve nothing but our deepest skepticism.

Gaia theory is bullshit, pure quackery (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794403)

The Earth is incredibly hostile to complex life. Out of the entire span that life lives on the Earth, 5 9's of that will be single celled organisms.

These things want us dead - we are in nothing like some kind of fucking harmony where we're all part of something bigger. Bacteria, virii, spores - all those things want you to die.

And eventually we, and all complex life will - as the solar system ages. It doesn't matter if we cause our own extinction, eventually the Earth will simply not have the goldilocks conditions for complex life anymore. The more complex life is, the more complex and specific those conditions are.

The for another few billions of years, Earth will be like in the beginning - home to single celled extremophile types of organisms who will be able to live in the radiation heavy, oxygen deprived rock spinning around a slowly dying sun. We will never live again, nothing will replace us.

Eventually they, too, will die when the earth is inside the suns atmosphere. The whole thing will blow up.

Gaia theory is stupid hippy drivel, it always has been. This guy is just a soundbite spewing yoyo.

6 years into Al Gore's campaign of mass persuation (-1, Offtopic)

tp1024 (2409684) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794413)

6 years into Al Gore's campaign of mass persuation not only do people grow weary, science itself has suffered major damage from a quasi religious, cargo cult sect, outwardly pretending to do science.

Using the same criteria as the climate "scientists" of the IPCC, seeing someone throw a die 4 times in a row is enough to shout out that the die is "very likely" loaded - no matter what the actual numbers were. Say, they all were even-numbered - gotcha. The chance for that less than 10%. thus, in climate-speak the die is 'very likely' fake. Say, they all were odd-numbered - gotcha. All 3 or smaller - gotcha. All 4 or larger - gotcha. All fibrionacci numbers - gotcha. None - gotcha. etc.

In the end, they simply only mention those data-mining results that happen to coincide with their preconceived notions of what climate change is supposed to look like. Climate-speak is giving them all the libeterties they need for this to still be "very likely" (90%) or even "virtually certain" (99%).

A recent result in particle physics was rejected outright, even though the associated statistical likelihood of the result was:

99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%

Despite all that confidence, neutrinos are still not faster than light, as any phycisist with a bit of basic understanding of fundamental physics could (and did) tell you. In the end, statistics means nothing. All that matters is the physics and the physics of climate change is shoddy.

IT's bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794427)

Global warming is a natural process. There's nothing else to say about that.

Stop ignoring the car you like because it might not get the fuel consumption you want even though you can afford it. Stop thinking you should buy that ugly electric car to save the planet even though your decision will do absolutely nothing to save it. Stop allowing politicians to sign bills which will 'save the planet' all the while removing citizens' rights. Stop thinking that the sun is automatically bad for you because someone's sun tan burns and simply ENJOY YOURSELVES.

Like everything else in the world, science has become a for-profit field. If we don't believe all of the bullshit these eggheads spout, their jobs will become obsolete. As a result, they want to do whatever possible to scare us into thinking that we need them and that we should change our ways entirely and even agree to a carbon tax which will 'save the planet' but also make some millionaire even more money and destroy our human rights.

Re:IT's bullshit. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794567)

Stop thinking that the sun is automatically bad for you because someone's sun tan burns and simply ENJOY YOURSELVES.

Have fun with that melanoma dude.

Huh? (3, Insightful)

dargaud (518470) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794441)

Since when is James Lovelock a climate scientist ?!? His predictions on the subject always had the same value as just about any other rambling slashdoter.

A train wreck in slow motion (1, Insightful)

Eravnrekaree (467752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794465)

The fact is he is wrong, there has been significant warming already due to global warming. Also he could be wrong about affects, there have been a lot of disasters and the frequency and trends could be increasing. The problem with human perception is that unless something happens immediately, it is not happening. Climate change will be a gradual trend, its not like we go to bed one day and everything is okay and the next day its a total disaster. With gradual worsening change, lets say 2% per year, people often end up seeing the new situation as the "new normal" and "just the way things are". For instance, the level of malnutrition has increased drastically to 1 billion, but because the rate of change has been 1% per year or whatever, it happens overnight, for many people this has just become the new background, the new normal, just the way things are. The earthquakes get news coverage and are immediately recognized as a disaster because it lies withim peoples short memory span, but, a longer term trend which takes centueries to occur, like malnutrition. All people see is the 1% change per annum, not the big picture of the really long term drastic changes. Humans have caused drastic changes to the earth in the past 100 years, vast areas of wildlife habitat have been destroyed, vast amounts of resources have been consumed, the CO2 level has increased greatly, and so on.

I know how to stop CO2 emissions... it's not hard. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794467)

1. Stop building Coal power generation plants
2. Build a single Thorium power plant, then activate all others after it with that plant to save money.
3. Dismantle all non-thorium power plants
4. Profit

Thorium is safe, a non-sustainable reaction. Ergo, if the heat sink fails (Japan + Tsunami) the reaction stop by itself. There is plenty of it, enough to keep the U.S. running for a 1000 years, it's cheap, and it takes a mere 100 years before it's not dangerously radioactive anymore. And most of all... ITS CLEAN.

I hate governments saying: "We all have to do our bit for the climate, so we raise taxes on fuel", while building a shitload of coal power plants. So why aren't we using thorium yet? Very simple, it's expensive to put the first one there (even though all others would be cheaper), and, this is the big one, you can't make nuclear weapons with it.

See how easily the problems in the world would be solved if we didn't have retarded politicians?

Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. (4, Informative)

goodmanj (234846) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794579)

Yes, Lovelock was being overly alarmist. He also has no expertise in climate change prediction, so his guess is as good as yours. The fact that he's wrong doesn't mean that actual experts who've made less extreme predictions are also wrong.

Lovelock is a black-and-white kind of guy(*), who tends toward hyperbole. His Gaia hypothesis is the same way: he takes a small truth about negative feedbacks in Earth systems and blows it up into some huge quasi-religious theory of everything.

* Yes, that was a Daisyworld joke.

Re:Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794623)

What if I actually want to throw the baby out? It's a very ugly baby and it makes me feel uncomfortable. This is the best excuse I'll ever get!

Oh look at that. (1)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794585)

Another professional predictor admits his was wrong. Big surprise.
When are people going to realize just about every "prediction" that people publicly make are complete and utter BS?
The world is ending! The stock markets are crashing! The economy is booming! The earth is turning into a giant fireball!

Kook wrong != science wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794621)

"Kook admits he was wrong, all climate science therefore wrong"?

Anyone who thinks global warming is a hoax, or even overstated, obviously hasn't bothered looking into it. Even if you have an allergy to study, the weather is thrashing here in the USA.

I would like to say what I said 20 years ago (3, Informative)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794629)

Lovelock is a chemist, not a climatologist, and his hypothesis is clearly a chemists view. Also, no living organism supports Lovelocks theory; which shoots it in the foot. In other words: Natural selection would need a means of cross species reproductive communication.

Consensus of actual experts in the field did no agree with the pace of his predictions. Media loved it "FEAR NOW!" and Hollywood used is to spawn another round disaster movies.

Re:I would like to say what I said 20 years ago (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39794819)

"Natural selection would need a means of cross species reproductive communication"

What about negative feedback communication ? Y'know, as in one species preying on another, reducing their reproduction odds.

Gaia "Scientist" (2)

mchappee (22897) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794769)

He's a Gaia "scientist". May as well cover "Creation Scientist Admits Earth May Be a Bit Older"...

MC

Old guy with no science (2)

duckintheface (710137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39794779)

James Lovelock is 92 years old. Born in 1919. He is not a climate scientist. He did not speak for climate scientists 20 years ago when he claimed the world was ending. He does not speak for climate scientists now. Ignore him and he will go away. Soon.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...